Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

December 13, 2017 G.R. No.

192048 writ of seizure be issued directing the Sheriff to seize the properties and to dispose
them in accordance with Section 6, Rule 60 of the Revised Rules of Court. The RTC
DOUGLAS F. ANAMA, Petitioner, vs. CITIBANK, N.A. (formerly First National City granted the motion through its Resolution12 dated February 28, 1977. The Ex-
Bank), Respondent. Officio Sheriff of Quezon City issued three receipts for the seized properties on
March 1 7, 18, and 19, 1977.13 Anama filed a motion for reconsideration but this was
DECISION denied by the RTC in a Resolution14 dated March 18, 1977.

JARDELEZA, J.: Anama then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ of preliminary
injunction with the CA on March 21, 1977 (docketed as CAG. R. SP No. 06499) on the
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court ground that the above resolutions of the trial court were issued in excess of
seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision2 dated November 19, 2009 (assailed jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion because of the lack of evidence
Decision) and the Resolution3 dated April 20, 2010 (assailed Resolution) of the Court proving Citibank's right to possession over the properties subject of the chattel
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 1077 48, denying petitioner's action for revival of mortgage.15
judgment.
On July 30, 1982, the CA rendered a Decision16 (July 30, 1982 Decision) granting
In consideration for a loan obtained from respondent First National City Bank of New Anama's petition for certiorari and prohibition and nullifying the RTC's orders of
York (now Citibank, N.A.) (Citibank), on November 10, 1972, petitioner Douglas F. seizure, to wit:
Anama (Anama) executed a promissory note in the amount of ₱418,000.00 in favor
of Citibank.4 To secure payment of the obligation, Anama also executed in favor of WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. The questioned resolutions issued by the
Citibank a chattel mortgage over various industrial machineries and equipment respondent judge in Civil Case No. 95991, dated February 28, 1977, and March 18,
located on his property at No. 1302, E. de los Santos Avenue, Quezon City.5 For 1977, together with the writs and processes emanating or deriving therefrom, are
Anama's failure to pay the monthly installments due on the promissory note starting hereby declared null and void ab initio.
January 1974, Citibank filed a complaint for sum of money and replevin 6 dated
November 13, 1974 (docketed as Civil Case No. 95991) with the Court of First The respondent ex-of[f]icio sheriff of Quezon City and the respondent First National
Instance of Manila (now Regional Trial Court), Branch 11. Anama filed his answer City Bank are hereby ordered to return all the machineries and equipments with
with counterclaim7 and his amended answer with counterclaim,8 alleging, among their accessories seized, dismantled and hauled, to their original and respective
others, that his failure to pay the monthly installments was due to the fault of places and positions in the shop flooring of the petitioner's premises where these
Citibank as it refused to receive the checks he issued, and that the chattel mortgage articles were, before they were dismantled, seized and hauled at their own expense.
was defective and void.9 The said respondents are further ordered to cause the repair of the concrete
foundations destroyed by them including the repair of the electrical wiring and
On December 2, 1974, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), upon proof of default of facilities affected during the seizure, dismantling and hauling.
Anama in the payment of his loan, issued an Order of Replevin over the machineries
and equipment covered by the chattel mortgage.10 The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore in effect is hereby made permanent.
Costs against the private respondents.
On January 29, 1977, Citibank, alleging that the properties subject of the Order of
Replevin which were taken by the Sheriff under his custody were not delivered to it, SO ORDERED.17
filed a motion for [issuance of] alias writ of seizure.11 Citibank prayed that an alias
On August 25, 1982, Citibank filed its petition for review on certiorari with this Court 06499. While concededly filed within 10 years from the April 12, 1999 entry of the
(docketed as G.R. No. 61508) assailing the July 30, 1982 Decision of the CA.18 On decision rendered in G.R. No. 61508, the petition should have been filed with the
March 17, 1999, we promulgated a Decision19 dismissing Citibank's petition for lack appropriate Regional Trial Court which has exclusive original jurisdiction over all civil
of merit and affirming the July 30, 1982 Decision of the CA. An Entry of Judgment20 actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation
was subsequently issued on April 12, 1999. and/or all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal, person or
body exercising judicial or quasijudicial functions. x x x29
Meanwhile, on November 19, 1981, during the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 06499 in
the CA, the fourth floor of the Manila City Hall, where Branch 11 of the R TC of Anama filed his motion for reconsideration which the CA denied through its assailed
Manila and its records, including the records of Civil Case No. 95991 were located, Resolution30 dated April 20, 2010.
was destroyed by fire.21
On June 10, 2010, Anama filed this petition31 and argued that his petition for revival
On February 10, 1982, Anama filed a petition for reconstruction of record22
in the of judgment should be filed in the court that issued the judgment sought to be
23
RTC, which the latter granted in an Order dated May 3, 1982. On December 2, revived, the CA in this case.32
1982, considering that G.R. No. 61508 was already pending before this Court, the R
TC issued an Order24 directing that all pending incidents in Civil Case No. 95991 be In its comment,33 Citibank agrees with the CA that jurisdiction over actions for
suspended until G.R. No. 61508 has been resolved. revival of judgments is with the R TC.34 Citibank also argues that Anama's petition to
revive judgment is already barred by laches and that it did not waive or abandon its
On March 12, 2009, Anama filed a petition for revival of judgment with the CA claim against Anama in Civil Case No. 95991.35
(docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 107748).25 Anama sought to revive the CA's July 30,
1982 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 06499 and argued that Citibank's failure to file an On December 30, 2010, Anama filed his reply.36
action for the reconstitution of the records in the RTC in Civil Case No. 95991
constituted abandonment of its cause of action and complaint against Anama. 26 In On August 25, 2016, Anama filed a manifestation37 reiterating the arguments on his
addition to the revival of the CA's July 30, 1982 Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 06499, petition. On February 17, 2017, Citibank filed its comment38 stressing that the CA did
Anama sought to remand the case to the RTC for further proceedings in Civil Case not err in dismissing the petition to revive judgment on the ground of lack of
No. 95991, particularly his counterclaims against Citibank.27 jurisdiction. On March 16, 2017, Anama filed his reply.39

In its comment, Citibank argued that the petition should be dismissed as an action We deny the petition.
for revival of judgment is within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. It also
argued that laches has set in against Anama for having slept on his rights for almost An action to revive a judgment is an action whose exclusive purpose is to enforce a
10 years. Lastly, Citibank claimed that it did not abandon its money claim against judgment which could no longer be enforced by mere motion.40 Section 6, Rule 39 of
Anama when it did not initiate the reconstitution proceedings in the RTC. 28 the Revised Rules of Court provides:

On November 19, 2009, the CA denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Pertinent Sec. 6. Execution by motion or by independent action. - A final and executory
portions of the assailed Decision reads: judgment or order may be executed on motion within five (5) years from the date of
its entry. After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of
[W]e find that respondent bank correctly question (sic) this Court's jurisdiction to limitations, a judgment may be enforced by action. The revived judgment may also
entertain the instant petition to revive the July 30, 1982 decision in CA-G.R. SP No.
be enforced by motion within five (5) years from the date of its entry and thereafter the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action determines the
by action before it is barred by the statute of limitations. jurisdiction of the court.48

Section 6 is clear. Once a judgment becomes final and executory, the prevailing Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 (BP 129), otherwise known as the Judiciary
party can have it executed as a matter of right by mere motion within five years Reorganization Act of 1980 and its amendments, is the law which confers jurisdiction
from the date of entry of judgment. If the prevailing party fails to have the decision to the courts. Section 19 of BP 129, as amended by Republic Act No.
enforced by a motion after the lapse of five years, the said judgment is reduced to a 7691,49 provides:
right of action which must be enforced by the institution of a complaint in a regular
court within 10 years from the time the judgment becomes final.41 Sec. 19. Jurisdiction in civil cases. - Regional Trial Courts shall exercise exclusive
original jurisdiction:
Further, a revival suit is a new action, having for its cause of action the judgment
sought to be revived.42 It is different and distinct from the original judgment sought (1) In all civil actions in which the subject of the litigation is incapable of pecuniary
to be revived or enforced.43 It is a new and independent action, wherein the cause estimation;
of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action upon which the
judgment sought to be enforced is rendered. Revival of judgment is premised on the In determining the jurisdiction of an action whose subject is incapable of pecuniary
assumption that the decision to be revived, either by motion or by independent estimation, the nature of the principal action or remedy sought must first be
action, is already final and executory.44 ascertained. If it is primarily for the recovery of a sum of money, the claim is
considered capable of pecuniary estimation and the jurisdiction of the court
As an action for revival of judgment is a new action with a new cause of action, the depends on the amount of the claim. But, where the primary issue is something
rules on instituting and commencing actions apply, including the rules on other than the right to recover a sum of money, where the money claim is purely
jurisdiction. Its jurisdictional requirements are not dependent on the previous action incidental to, or a consequence of, the principal relief sought, such are actions
and the petition does not necessarily have to be filed in the same court which whose subjects are incapable of pecuniary estimation, hence cognizable by the
rendered judgment.45 RTCs.50

Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the courts to hear, try and As an action to revive judgment raises issues of whether the petitioner has a right to
decide cases. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the nature of the have the final and executory judgment revived and to have that judgment enforced
action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint. The averments and does not involve recovery of a sum of money, we rule that jurisdiction over a
and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.46 petition to revive judgment is properly with the R TCs. Thus, the CA is correct in
holding that it does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide Anama's action for
The principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law revival of judgment.
and determined by the allegations in the complaint which comprise a concise
statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. The nature A reading of the CA's jurisdiction also highlights the conclusion that an action for
of an action, as well as which court or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined revival of judgment is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the CA. Section 9 of BP 129
based on the allegations contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of provides:
whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted.47 Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established rule is that Sec. 9. Jurisdiction. -The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas As we have already ruled on jurisdiction, there is no more reason to discuss whether
corpus, and quo warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of laches has set in against Anama.
its appellate jurisdiction;
Considering, however, that the proceedings in Civil Case No. 95991 have been
2. Exclusive original jurisdiction over actions for annulment of judgments of Regional suspended and remains pending since 1982, we deem it necessary to lift the order
Trial Courts; and of suspension and instruct the trial court to hear and try the case with deliberate
dispatch.
3. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, resolutions, orders or
awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasi-judicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 19, 2009 and
or commission, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Social Resolution dated April 20, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 107748
Security Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil are AFFIRMED.
Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the We direct the trial court to proceed with the hearing and disposition in Civil Case No.
Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this 95991 with all deliberate dispatch.
Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph 4 of the
fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. SO ORDERED.

The CA also has concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for issuance of writ FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
of amparo,51 writ of habeas data,52and writ of kalikasan. 53 Associate Justice

Not being one of the enumerated cases above, it is clear that the CA is without
jurisdiction to hear and decide an action for revival of judgment.

Anama's reliance on Aldeguer v. Gemelo54 to justify his filing with the CA is


misplaced.1avvphi1 The issue in Aldeguer is not jurisdiction but venue. The issue was
which between the RTC of Iloilo and RTC of Negros Occidental was the proper court
to hear the action.

However, venue and jurisdiction are entirely distinct matters. Jurisdiction may not
be conferred by consent or waiver upon a court which otherwise would have no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action; but the venue of an action as fixed
by statute may be changed by the consent of the parties and an objection that the
plaintiff brought his suit in the wrong county may be waived by the failure of the
defendant to make a timely objection. In either case, the court may render a valid
judgment. Rules as to jurisdiction can never be left to the consent or agreement of
the parties, whether or not a prohibition exists against their alteration.55 Venue is
procedural, not jurisdictional, and hence may be waived.56

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen